Story submitted by Eric Worrall: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a taxpayer funded media organization, has just asked whether we should consider restructuring democracy to ensure an efficient response to the climate “crisis”.
The first paragraph;
“Is it democracy that is blocking progress on climate change or the current limited version of it that pervades Western society?” pretty much sums up the rest of the article, which spends several paragraphs praising authoritarianism, before chickening out and trying to suggest that governments are acting contrary to the wishes of voters.”
The article quotes one of our old favorites, Naomi Oreskes, who celebrates China’s authoritarian political process; “China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.”
To me, what this bizarre effort suggests more than anything, other than a disturbing lack of commitment to democracy, is that Australian greens are still having trouble accepting that in the last election, they were soundly rejected. Greens are blaming imagined flaws in the democratic process, rather than trying to understand the reasons for their rapidly fading appeal to ordinary voters.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the “Watermelons” are revealing themselves to be nothing but would-be totalitarian mass killers.
Since when has any of the marxist world actually given a damn about the environment or the phony CAGW? The worst cesspools of environmental degradation exist there. Speak to me of the pristene AIr Quality in China, Mouthpiece Ms. Oreskes, and the product of the superiority of totalitarianism.
They are would-be mass murderers on the loose, who concede their program includes killing on a mass scale in the multi-billions to get humanity down to a number that is ever shifting and undefineable but “sustainable”, and controllable. They brag of the “Big Die Off” they would initiate and deem necessary, and glory in it. Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler both Socialists, published such tripe before they came to power too.
Naomi and the rest deserve Nuremberg trials; and then mass hangings. Before they are in a position to expand the Gulags on a grand scale once more.
As for the ABC, the very existence of a government news media answers a question long since become irrelevant. There is no scarcity of thought or expression, which was once feared, except in the government bureaucracies so populated with leftist ideology. The answer ? Simply defund it; and watch it become, Gone with the Wind…
I’ve an alternative suggestion while awaiting those trials, Stas. I’d dearly like to see Stony Bliar in the dock.
How about banning them to an uninhabited & inhospitable Island where they can organise each other endlessly into a communist paradise, on a Codex Alimentarius diet, of course, & with all the renewable energy they could cobble together themselves?
Michael before you label others of being liars or fools first look to yourself more closely if you can be sufficiently introspective. Judging by your remarks I certainly doubt that.
The title “The Australian Government Broadcaster asks if we should ditch Democracy to ensure a climate change response” is a sad and sorry deception of a private article in an Opinion section of the ABC (Drum) which is open for comment.
The title of the ABC article is “Is democracy hurting our climate change response?”
Eric,
You still don’t get it.
Firstly the title is a question. Further the Drum is an opinion section of the ABC where this article is sourced from an author independent of the ABC; it is not endorsed by the ABC. Further the author himself stated:
“Put more directly, I contend that it is not democracy that stands in the way, but the dominance of money and corporate interests in politics.”
What more do you need????
If you read what I wrote, you’ll see I described this switch from praising authoritarianism to questioning the structure of democracy, and my perception of the article, which in my opinion was entirely too sympathetic to the authoritarian option.
Ah the famous question mark in headlines. It is a device to push an opinion or story without valid supporting evidence or for avoiding any responsibility or accountability for what the story or opinion implies. It is meant to provoke or mis-inform not enlighten.
TonyM, claiming the question mark as an excuse for the title “Is democracy hurting our climate change response?” is either disingenuous or naive. The editors at ABC were pushing that opinion.
Furthermore you provide this quote, “Put more directly, I contend that it is not democracy that stands in the way, but the dominance of money and corporate interests in politics.”
I don’t know that this dissolves the ABC of responsibility for being stupid either. Does ABC only want a democracy turned into dictatorship if ABC disagrees with the voters of that democracy?
Note the question mark.
Alx
September 7, 2014 at 4:48 am
“Ah the famous question mark in headlines. It is a device to push an opinion or story without valid supporting evidence or for avoiding any responsibility or accountability for what the story or opinion implies. It is meant to provoke or mis-inform not enlighten.”
It is a device to implant an idea; to make something unthinkable acceptable. It will be followed by Orwellian word redefinitions and endless iterations of human reprogramming until the idea can be put on the table and rubberstamped. Sowing the seeds of Glorious Revolution.
If you are not Australian you might be excused. If you are familiar with the Drum you will be aware that it is an opinion section and has little relevance to the ABC opinion or editorial.
Your piece clearly implicates the ABC as if the article was endorsed by the ABC which is nonsense. Look at your headline and also the opening paragraph. They have no relevance to the ABC as media organization. You are clearly claiming the ABC has adopted and endorsed the opinion of an independent writer by cliaming:
“The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a taxpayer funded media organization, has just asked whether we should consider restructuring democracy to ensure an efficient response to the climate “crisis”.
In this sense it does not matter that it was posed as a question which I then pointed out was negated in the posting. The ABC did NOT ask the question and did NOT endorse the article.
By its charter the ABC is obliged to deal in an even handed way with diverse opinion. Whether the article is “entirely too sympathetic to the authoritarian option.” as you claim is immaterial; it is not for the ABC to decide what sympathy should be appropriate if the article meets standards for publication.
Equally, you are entitled to submit an article directly opposing this and there would be questions asked if it met publication standards but was not allowed.
For example, Anthony Watts would have ample scope to submit a piece that was topical and receive favourable consideration (I don’t believe it is restricted to Australians). Nutticelli and Mann have had pieces published. So too have Cook and Jo Nova each with their own biases.
This also addresses Alx comment.
Re the ABC Drum publishing, these extracts are self explanatory.
“The Drum publishes opinion and analysis by ABC journalists and people from across the Australian community.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/contribute/
“The Drum is the ABC’s opinion and analysis website. It presents writing from ABC staff and members of the public.
Opinion pieces must endeavour to be provocative with the ultimate aim of generating public debate.
The Drum is an online space for contributors to present their own opinions. The ABC does not take responsibility for the opinions or facts presented by non-staff writers.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/contribute/guide/
Sorry if it seems out of place but the extracts from the Drum publication requirements is pertinent to a piece awaiting moderation.
If it will make you feel better, the article was originally published in the ABC Environment section. http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/09/05/4081208.htm
Does this make it more, or less, permissible to say “the ABC asks…”?
Eric,
Look closely at the “Environment” department. What section does this article come under? Is it a surprise to you that it reads “OPINION?”
It’s in bold and underlined at the head of the article. Does it surprise you that such opinion is quite divorced from the opinion of the ABC – however one might define such a collective opinion?
This was never an issue with whether I am to feel better. You have embarked on an erroneous depiction of the ABC policy, editorial and content. Had you put your piece on the Drum you would by now have been slaughtered, not by the ABC, but by the comments from the community of readers.
You would have gained little traction because we can differentiate between individual opinion and opinion tolerated within the charter of the ABC with its own reporting standards. The ABC has an obligation to the public to allow diverse opinion to be expressed; it provides a citizens’ forum for such open expression.
My main issue is that you have introduced this into a forum where people are not familiar with our system and can’t be expected to form that judgement. This is why I said that you can be excused if you are not Australian.
The Australian people are rightly proud of our ABC. Pride alone is not sufficient reason to defend it; it must meet its obligations judged in an objective manner.
I’m Australian Tony. The ABC does not speak for me, and neither do you.
You can wriggle all you want, but if WUWT had published an “opinion” piece which discussed totalitarianism in positive terms, I doubt you would have been so understanding.
Eric,
You are squirming.
As an Aussie, you should know better than to make silly, misleading comments or trite comparisons of a private forum to a public organization subject to scrutiny under its charter.
That charter makes no comment about speaking for you, personally, and the ABC did not try to do so. If you have a problem with it you are free to pursue it through the appropriate channels.
Bluntly, you have no case. If you did you would not have used this forum where most of the readers are unfamiliar with our system. You would have tried to make a case in the Australian media, which is diverse.
I find it a cowardly, deceptive attack on the ABC for whatever purpose you have. This sort of sensationalism makes me wonder whether the BBC has not been similarly treated; it is just a thought as I have no experience there.
In Oz, you are wrong!! But, you are free to be wrong and hide from scrutiny here which would not have as high an Oz readership to know and respond.
Whatever…
“Is it democracy that is blocking progress on climate change or the current limited version of it that pervades Western society?”
/////////////////
I do not know what they meant by that comment, but if it was intended to note that we do not have democracy in the West, then it is very true; sad but true.
In the West by no stretch of the imagination do we have any thing resembling democracy. probably the nearest one come to it is Switzerland, where they have a habit of referring matters to referendem to see what the people think of discrete issues.
Perhaps the time has come to adopt a very small state and an adversarial system, whereby government merely manages essential services such as the police, fire service etc, but have no control of wider policies, and every major issue is put to the people to decide by voting say online via the internet or mobile phone.. The government would employ experts one for the case and one against the case, and these expert’s views would be aired on the News (alotted equal time to each expert) so that the public can see both sides of every arugment, and then let the people decide which way they want to go.
One needs to do something to wrestle power away from the niche political class, and put it back in the hands of the people, so that there is government by the people for the people.
Our federal government was never intended to have near as much power as it has. As a Republic (not a strict democracy) almost all powers were supposed to reside in the states. However, over time the Federal government has amassed more and more power, to the point the US is about to become a dictatorship. So much power has been given to the Executive branch agencies that we are on the verge of losing it all.
We have the EPA writing and enforcing regulations, at gun-point if necessary, without needing approval from Congress. We have the DOJ choosing which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce, and deciding which ones them deem constitutional and which ones they don’t. We have the IRS targeting individuals and groups they don’t politically agree with.
Why is it that in these types of pictures the participants can be counted in two seconds? A bit like the 30 or so Super-human who were carrying paper filled boxes with the power of one hand only. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/07/friday-funny-great-moments-in-environmentalism-the-2-million-kxl-comments-real-or-fake/.
Whenever you hear the words ‘for the good of the people ‘ that is when you should start to worry , for they are often heard from those who intended no good and are certainly not for the people at all. Throughout history no tyrant has ever started by claiming that they hate others and want them died , they all start with the claim with what they are doing is ‘good ‘ for the country, people , tripe or whatever and that if some have to suffer that is price worth paying .
The Greens merely follow in that long ignoble trend .
The greens wishes for a global government have already been tried in the form of the League of Nations. It was dissolved right after some Austrian and Georgian mustache guys prioritized their centrally governed utopia over democracy. Supported by a handful of reality-immune idealists with national and/or international ambitions.
IN my opinion, great progress is being made in the ‘battle against climate change’. Democracy, especially via the internet, is educating millions of people that they shouldn’t trust what Governments tell them without finding independent sources to verify what they are told. In short, the skills of traditional journalism is slowly being transferred as a core skill to Joe Schmo, his sister Joe Schmoette etc etc.
I think we should distinguish between ‘progress toward tyrannical world government’ and ‘progress in human relations on earth’ when discussing this matter.
Whilst progress toward one world government is progress down a particular path, it is incontrovertibly not progress in the move away from feudal governance toward inclusive government by consent.
in Australia the ABC is second rate and I don,t know anybody that takes any notice of the BS they pedaling
United we’ll stand and divided we’ll fall should be the war cry of a solid social democracy . BUT we live in a world were the military controls our lives and they use divide and concour. The backbone for a good democracy is a trustworthy media. The problem is that we live in a world were people will sell their soul for a dollar or two. The way to control the masses is to control knowledge or knowing by the use of propaganda. The first thing a nation does when they have invaded another country is burn all their books and replace it with their own literature.
Typical of the lovey, gay liberals who inhabit and run the BBC and ABC. (Effeminates, attracted by the performing arts.) They are often authoritarian, as long as the proposed authority is extreme gay and liberal. But you should hear them curse and swear if you suggest that the authoritarian regime should be extreme right wing.
Having said that, when you get authoritarian regimes, right and left seem to blend into one. Stalin, Mao and Castro were communist socialists, but not very gay, while H!tler was also a socialist.
R
Because unlike people of your beliefs, this site does not censor. If you don’t like a comment, you can respond in your own way.
Also happens to be right.
Yes, but keep in mind that while the ABC is totally out of control, and acting against Australia`s intersts, Tony Abbot is allowing it to happen.
Tony Abbot: friend of the ABC?
Should Australia ditch the ABC to preserve democracy?
The left contemplates authoritarian centralized government because they see themselves doing it. Kind of like authoritarian, centralized science. Dissent is bothersome.
The green vote needs to stay below 10%. At that rate, they have a voice but they have no real power to damage the economy, the government, the democracy and the people. They are not competent enough to have more than a voice.
If you are in one of those unfortunate countries where they have more than 10% of the vote, they are doing damage. It won’t stop until you can get your fellow voters to stop voting for or giving money to incompetent green parties (or parties that have a large green component to them exceeding 10%, the Democratic Party in the US?).
These guys want to enslave us under the New World Order. Why can’t they just come out and say it?
I am truly amazed at the number of left wing, extremist progressives that have shown up here to defend totalitarianism in the name of “climate change”. Truly stunning. There was a time when such an article would have been too repulsive for a mainstream news/entertainment outlet like the ABC to publish. But not any more. Extremist views are the norm now in the mainstream media.
We all need to keep fighting this menace – don’t buy their newspapers, magazines, or other products. Complain loudly to the news organization in question and their sponsors/enablers. Remove all their links from your phone, ipad , and computer. And suggest to your friends and neighbors that they do the same…
The green true believers will never accept that they could be wrong or that they have any obligation to consider the wishes of the electorate. So they will respond to this setback by blaming the people. They will conclude that the ignorant masses are suffering from false consciousness and don’t know what’s good for them. Therefore it is not only permissible to ignore what the people say they want but a positive duty to do so. The more the greens get rejected at the ballot box the more openly anti-democratic they will become.
One constant with leftists, they don’t believe that people should be permitted to disagree with them.
BTW, isn’t China the country that is opening a new COAL fired power plant every week and that has air pollution so bad that people are dying from it? How on earth could any sane person cite them as an environmental model for the rest of us to emulate?
You already have the DPRK now you can have the DPRA.
If the ABC is funded fully or in part by the government in Australia, it seems to me that the country’s authorities should have enough clout with the ABC to force some heads to roll if this extremism in the ABC is viewed widely enough as a threat to Australian democracy and the human rights of the Australian people. The Australian govt’s tolerance of this extremist element (however large that element is) within the ABC and the country’s green leftist and climate alarmist movements should not be taken lightly if the people of Australia truly cherish democracy and human rights as much as we do here in the U.S.
As an American, Australia is one of the countries outside of the U.S. that I admire the most. If I had to live outside the U.S., Australia would be my number one choice. As an Australian, I would almost certainly be willing to take part in any effort to bring this issue to the national forefront and demand action to circumvent it.
Here in the U.S. of course we have the same problem with our green leftist and climate alarmist movements. We unfortunately have a president right now who more than likely would not see any problem with the totalitarian element in those movements, without regard to the size of it. We do have a “green party” here, but they don’t get enough votes at the ballot box (do they even get on the ballot in all 50 states?) to give them any clout here. With the green leftist and climate alarmist elements in the Democratic Party though, the political clout of the greens is routed through them.
In both of our countries, we can only hope that the extremist totalitarian elements in these movements remain small enough that they do not become a serious cause for concern. God help us if it does. G’day mates.
The ABC has been portrayed in a totally misleading light by this story; I have elaborated above.
Rest assured that it still is a robust organization subject to public scrutiny.
It is fully Govt funded but that should not be the means to determine whether it has achieved the right balance. Tony Abbott has enough sense not to allow that to intrude on more objective tests. It and its sister SBS are still the best broadcasters in town. They are free to air.
Censorship of opinion is not the answer; we have fought in wars to try to guarantee that right of opinion. You have that right as part of your constitution.
A better way to counter is to write a better piece of writing :).
Instead of ditching democracy use a common sense approach, make the climate response proportional to the rate of global warming. A lot of global warming a large response, a little warming a little response, no warming no response.
This being PRECISELY the end-game that the UN has been accused of engaging in.
They have no idea whatsoever as to what it is they are proposing. It is not new under the sun. Countless societies since, and probably prior to, the dawn of civilization have always conjured up threats to their existence whether those threats were real or imagined. And, to deal with those threats all forms of interventions, as ghastly as considered necessary, become tolerated, but perhaps the worst intervention of all being the proposal for an authoritarian regime which is granted the features of being unquestioned, unanswerable, and all powerful, so as to be adequately able to deal with the supposed threat.
While not openly advocating a war these people want all the base trappings of such: the thought restrictions, emergency measures, and the delegation of power to authoritarians. Do not for a second think that democracy is a protection against this. As Erdogan of Turkey has said; democracy is like a streetcar, once you get to your destination you get off. Since a democracy is rule of the majority, and a majority always holds absolute power, any representative elected by that majority holds absolutely power. As has been said repeatedly; democracies always elect a tyrant.
As Thomas Jefferson said: A government that is afraid of its people is the guarantee of liberty; but people who are afraid of its government is the presence of tyranny. Democracy does not insure that. Only a limited government, operating within the constraints of the rule of law, rotation within office, and a constitutionally backed republican (not to be confused with the party) system of governance, can provide liberty. And in so doing it provides the greatest, and yet gentle, security.
Socialists love to throw around the word “democracy”, but by that they mean Cuban democracy. You should be able to vote for anyone who has the correct political views.
Peter ” I am saying that unequivocally the ABC is the most trusted news organisation in Australia.”
Ah, but lets not mix apples and oranges here. Is ABC the most trusted news source when it comes specifically to AGW??